First, THANK YOU for the details. Very educational.

Second, with the advent of Drones and the ability to attach a Drone Mine to the bottom of a ship, and emit enough noise to hold the ship hostage.

This, to me, changes everything. Piracy will become technological. And the smart Pirates will charge what amounts to a nuisance fee (like anti-virus software, LOL)...

Finally, and I am not challenging what you provided... But is there a "normalcy bias" here. Because we have had quite the fleet knocking the crap out of any ships that threatened ships for a long time. Piracy has NOT been a great business idea for some time.

When the "Police" stop roaming around, I assume it will pick up, like inner city crime does...

You think CVN's can do this without other warships? Not an informed position.

Faster is REAL hard. Power for propulsion on displacement hulls is proportional to the cube (^3) of speed. No getting around this physics.

"When that Navy goes away. Shipping will have to start utilizing ships that move FASTER to be a target for a smaller amount of time. Those ships will have to charge more to protect themselves. All Prices go up. Availability of things drops.

It is a FAR more nuanced situation than you are giving it. Also, we've all but lost the ability to make these ships. "

No, we have not we still make them. They just aren't economically competitive even when you ignore piracy - which is rather geographically limited. Nor is your assertion about why we have these big container ships correct.

Container ship size is driven by:
- Port depth and infrastructure (your ship is useless if it can't dock)
- Canal constraints (Panamax, New Panamax, Suezmax classes exist for a reason)
- Economies of scale in cargo handling and fuel consumption
- Interest rates and capital costs (larger ships = more capital outlay)

Even if global piracy was zero, shipping ships would still be the size they are today. Economies of scale and fuel efficiency -> Big ships -> Low per-unit costs - this is the reason. Annual operating costs per TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit - basically a standard shipping container) drop by more than one-half when moving from Panamax to larger vessels. That's not piracy protection - that's pure physics and infrastructure optimization. Pirates don't factor into naval architecture decisions at all.

If they did, we'd still have larger ships but they'd have anti-boarding features built into them. In fact, your argument that big and slow is easier for pirates is inverted from reality. Modern pirates use fast skiffs. Container ships cruise at 12-20+ knots. The differential isn't the issue. You simply are not going to get fast small container ships that a small, fast pirate skiff can't catch. What actually matters is freeboard height (how high the deck is above water) and armed guards. The largest ships are harder to board, not easier.

Even with that aside, recall I mentioned piracy is geographically constrained. Piracy is geographically concentrated in a few chokepoints. The vast majority of shipping routes have zero piracy risk. The idea that the entire global fleet architecture is optimized around piracy avoidance is not how shipping economics works. Standard war-risk premiums hover at 0.3–0.5 percent of vessel value per transit - but only for high-risk zones. Most shipping routes carry essentially zero piracy-related insurance cost.

The zones where this applies are:
- Gulf of Aden (Somali piracy zone): 0.3-0.5% per transit
- Strait of Hormuz: ~0.2% per transit
- Red Sea during Houthi attacks: 0.6-1% per transit (spiked dramatically)
- Gulf of Guinea: 0.3-0.7%

The global total of war-risk premiums is close to $1 billion. That sounds large until you realize global container shipping moves ~$14+ trillion in goods annually. War risk is not even a rounding error in global shipping economics. Ship stores and lubricants is far greater of a cost, and that comes in at about 4% of operating costs for a typical 10k TEU ship. Fuel is half of operating costs. And fuel costs go up on smaller ships for teh same amount of cargo (physics, again). A lot.

Say you had a fleet of ten 10K TEU ships and you switch to 40 2.5K TEU ships. Your daily fleet fuel consumption would from about 1,750 tons to about 2500 tons - for moving the same amount of cargo. Call it roughly 30-40% more fuel for the same cargo capacity.

That will drive you to the larger ships all on its own. But that is before accounting for:

- 40 crews instead of 10
- 40 sets of port fees instead of 10
- 40 insurance policies
- 4× the maintenance

This is why the industry relentlessly pushed toward larger ships until they hit the physical constraints of ports and canals, not because the USN has big warships to fight pirates.

Frankly that wouldn't matter in any good way. The entitlement spending is so far beyond out of control it dominates anything else budget and spending-wise. Yes even, and especially, defense. Until you address that grave abomination and wrangle it down, anything defense related is irrelevant.

This is especially true for naval ships - arguably one of the few net benefits at a monetary/asset level.

And surely you're not suggesting a modern navy doesn't need aircraft carriers - the largest of naval warships? Which makes your recommendation even less meaningful.

FANTASTIC!

Without trying to be too graphic, saying goodbye to NPR gives me the same calm, contented state of mind as if I had just squatted down and unloaded a Guiness-Book-record nineteen-pound "viable candidate" on the steps of the DNC and didn't bother to flush. The circling flies are bringing tears of joy to my eyes. Or maybe it's the smell...

"Trusted news" my ass.

And they are still at it, but since I am not paying for it I don't care. This is one of the best things that has been done since Trump took office, and it's not just a matter of revenge. It's a matter of the idea that there's NO reason for us to pay for news reporting as a matter of routine - or at all. EVER.

The details I'm noting are not public.

Here is the sophomoric government site:
https://www.goldenfleet.navy.mil/

No, I saw it, but I'd like to understand the details to be convinced that its economic.
I haven't found details online. If you can point me to some links, I'd appreciate it.
(I see the BBG47 as an example of Star Wars' death star.)

I thought I explained how BBG-47 isn't a defenseless target. Did you miss it, or disagree?

Per congressional reports 95% of traffic through the Red Sea is Asia to Europe, not to the US.
Per industry statistics about 10% of shipments to the US went through the Red Sea and therefore affected.
As I stated above, Europe is the primary beneficiary of anti-piracy efforts there and US taxpayers bear the costs.
BBG47 is an overpriced sitting duck target. Perhaps Trump can put his golden name on some attack subs or
cyber systems instead.

Somali pirates absolutely affect US goods, and require longer force projection. However, shutting down pirates does not require BBG-47. That is for China.

I agree on the shipping consumption issue, but the location of the piracy (Houthis) currently
has little affect on US goods which cross the pacific unthreatened while Europe is the
destination of the shipping being threatened by Houthi pirates.

We agree on 90%
Except the USA consumes more than Europe.
We were/are always a primary beneficiary.
This is why China struggles when we stop buying as much.

But I've learned to let Trump be Trump. These are long term projects.
The Carrot. And I am watching him threaten their bonuses (the stick).
And that 50% "planned increase" may shrink once things change.
(Whatever they promise us ALWAYS shrinks before it gets to us).

Besides the 50% increase is 1/2 due to inflation :-)

But I would not be surprised to see Trump snatch that stuff away AFTER the midterms.
He cannot afford ENDLESS more attacks and still carry the house and senate.

Once he does, things will LIKELY shift back, but he needs the win to keep the wolves at bay.

As stated in a reply to Thor, https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I have no issue with some ships being built, but the type of ships that were effective in WW2
are sitting ducks today, and those are the ones that Trump appears to be promoting.
(Trump's ego shouldn't be a deciding factor in naval construction decisions.)
Dealing with piracy (which is a valid goal for naval power) does not require a CVN today.
Must American taxpayers always pay for such anti-piracy efforts when the benefits are often
primarily for European countries?
I agree, Trump has started to move the spending on defense toward actual defense of
American interests. Building an expensive navy of sitting duck naval war machines is
going in the wrong direction.
Increasing military spending by 50% as proposed today is utter foolishness.
(Sorry this has gone off topic.;^)

Right! Voluntary, not forcing me to support it!!!!!!!!!!

There has never been a world economic leader without a dominant navy.

Too bad your cousin's husband didn't know Marxists make greedy coporatists look like amateurs when it comes to legalized theft. He went into a world where his labors coming from his talent don't belong to him because it belongs to "the people".

Yeah, it is nice to stick to the subject, but I look at these Gulch threads like conversations in my parlor where sidetracking is just part of the family dialog.

We were talking about the CPB and suddenly all sorts of bullship pops up. Can anyone stick to one subject? This is the problem with all social media debates - Endless distractions and losing focus.

Public broadcasting , like propaganda is not about the public or its benefit,. It is about the political rulers and their bread and circuses pacification. My cousin's husband wrote songs for the CPB - Sesame Street and Barney. Did he reap any royalties or benefit for the songs they played every day for decades? Nothing, except his name on the credits and no further employment. Where did the money go? Miss Piggie?

If the public wants it to continue, all they have to do is fund it. We shouldn’t be forced to fund public indoctrination.

Oh, goodness gracious!
We can't be indoctrinated anymore?
The horror! Oh. the horror!
What can all the poor sheeple do?
Hey, but don't worry. Baa-baa still got its heehaws.
The Jackass Party still choo-choos along,
Hopefully to its own train wreck and not ours.

FFA, the big ships get into a TON of details that everyone overlooks.
Our Navy protects the shipping lanes from Pirates.
Somali and otherwise.

This protection has guaranteed that ships could become HUGE and COSTS go way down per unit sold. The HUGE ships must move slower, but become far more cost effective.

When that Navy goes away. Shipping will have to start utilizing ships that move FASTER to be a target for a smaller amount of time. Those ships will have to charge more to protect themselves. All Prices go up. Availability of things drops.

It is a FAR more nuanced situation than you are giving it. Also, we've all but lost the ability to make these ships. We get to re-engineer the process, and the educations required as we become more self-sufficient. Welding jobs pay well, and there are a TON of welding jobs on ships. Yes machine welding will do a lot, AND SHOULD. But there are some places that only a guy might fit.

The world is NOT a safe place. Most countries are a LOT LIKE Democrat Cities. They talk nice, but will kill you without a second thought.

The solution. Reduce our sphere of influence (Monroe), Build Better tools for the future (being done now). And acquire Greenland already (Preferably with a check).

But I like building some of the new ships because the world has changed, but we will still need to be able to project force to protect what is important to us.

Well, what you need is radar and missile coverage. How do you get enough radar there, and float enough missiles. A big ship is cheaper per missile than a small ship.
Then there is the issue of protecting the big ship. This is possible, but they need a paradigm shift for the lasers they have. They have 300kW lasers (going to 500kW). They need ~2MW. This is a physics problem. However, we can point 10x 300kW lasers on the same target without issue. This is not a problem, and with such a system, we can defeat hypersonics and drone swarms.

The last issue is cost vs size. If you look at shipbuilding costs, the cost of a surface ship is proportional to the tonnage, with high-correlation. That is why old-timers in government don't believe anything about lower cost shipbuilding. However, the cost of a cruise ship or other navy's ships do NOT follow this same trend. We need to get the RIDICULOUS NAVSEA organization and SUPSHIPS organizations the phuck out of the way. They are worse than dinosaurs.

For example, the Navy has it's own welding requirements and certification. If you want to make equipment for the Navy you MUST weld and braze to these requirements. Every welder and weld type has a separate certification. This means that the 1,000's of American Welding Society (AWS) fully-certified companies can NOT supply for any equipment going to the Navy. Who do you think knows more about welding, the thousands of people in AWS, who like IEEE or ASME study and improve welding year over year OR the 40 people in the NAVSEA welding code in 05? My brother eliminated NASA welding requirements and switched to AWS 14000 (flight safety) requirements. You can add an inspection on the weld, but not a unique weld requirement. This increased NASA's supply base over 10x! Just one stupid thing, but a perfect example of why we can lower the cost of our ships. It is NOT greedy shipbuilders, it is incompetent Navy specifiers and requirements.

If the prior Philly Shipyard, now acquired by Hanwah (Korean conglomerate and shipbuilder), gets engaged and we get NAVSEA out of the way, you will see some real affordability transitioning.

Certainly you could have superior knowledge. ;^)
Is the 'protection' cost and the construction costs of such ships the most economic use of scarce resources? Can the so-called projection of power that those ships arguably provide be done using more economic advanced technology?